The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a dropped kerb application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The personal injustice is not significant enough and we could not add anything to the Council’s response or achieve the outcome the complainant wants.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complained about how the Council handled his application for a dropped kerb. Mr X wants an independent party to consider his application and compensation for the time and trouble he says he has been caused.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister and considers appeals about issues including a decision to refuse planning permission
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
What I found
What happened Mr X wants to convert the area to the front of his property into a parking space. Mr X contacted the Council in October 2021 about this. It told him he would need to submit a pre-application enquiry costing £122. The Council would then say if Mr X needed to apply for planning permission.
Mr X made a pre-application enquiry and paid the £122. He says the Council “heavily suggested” he would not need to make a planning application and the Council would decide in two days. Mr X contacted the Council because two weeks later he had still not received a response.
The Council responded to Mr X after around three weeks and said he would need to make a full planning application. He would also need to make a separate application to the county council for permission to drop the kerb.
Mr X complained to the Council and said if it had given this information earlier, he could have submitted both applications at the same time. Mr X said information on the Council’s website was confusing. He said that because his property was on a “classified road” the Council should have realised a full planning application was always going to be needed. Mr X wanted the Council to waive the planning fee of £462 and approve his application based on the information he had already submitted. Mr X said the original quote for the work was no longer valid and was now more expensive.
In its responses to Mr X the Council accepted its service had been “found wanting” and refunded the £122. But it could not approve the application based on the information submitted. This was because a full planning application required different information. It said there had been a delay in responding to his complaint, but Mr X could have submitted the planning and dropped kerb applications early in November – when it responded to his pre-application enquiry. It directed Mr X to the Ombudsman.
Assessment I understand Mr X is frustrated by the Council’s actions. But we will not start an investigation into his complaint. The reasons for this are below.
Based on the information available, the Council has accepted fault in the way it dealt with Mr X’s initial enquiry and pre-application. Because of this fault he submitted an unnecessary pre-application costing £122. The Council should have told Mr X when he first contacted it that a full planning application would be needed because his house is on a classified road. But it has now refunded the £122 which address the injustice to Mr X from the fee he paid.
Mr X says the cost of the work has now increased because of the Council’s fault. But as the Council said in its response, Mr X could have submitted his planning and dropped kerb applications at the start of November, when the Council told him they would be required. The planning process takes around eight weeks, and we could not say the quote he had originally received would still have been valid when the application was approved. We could not therefore safely say the Council’s fault has caused Mr X a quantifiable financial loss.
We also do not know if Mr X’s application for planning permission and a dropped kerb will be approved. The cost of the works could therefore be irrelevant.
Mr X says he wants an independent party to consider his planning application. But this is not something we can do. Only the Local Planning Authority can do this. We cannot therefore achieve the outcome he wants. But if Mr X’s planning application was refused, he would have the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. We would normally expect a person to use such an appeal right.
Mr X is unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint and the time and trouble caused. I understand his frustrations, but it is not a good use of our resources to investigate complaint handling as a standalone issue. Even if we were to investigate Mr X’s complaint, it is unlikely we would recommend any remedy above the one the Council has put forward. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because his personal injustice is not significant enough and we could not add anything to the Council’s response or achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman